SCHOOL VISION:
Race to Recognized: To close the achievement gap of all learners to obtain recognized/exemplary status.
GOAL:
As an extension to our campus grade level Professional Learning Communities, will vertical teaming K-5 Math improve instructional practices for conceptual understanding and improve overall student assessment performance?
Will vertical teaming encourage the use of academic math language with more
consistency and frequency for students and teachers at all grade levels?
Will vertical teaming increase the "ownership" of responsibility and degree of
shared accountability for conceptual, foundational TEKS instruction for all K-5 Math teachers?
Note:
Triangulation of Assessment Methods:
1) Assessment Data, 2) Survey/Interviews, 3) Field Observations
OUTCOMES: (1 of 3)
1. New Vertical Math Team
ACTIVITIES:
1.
*Extend PLC’s to include recommended
(K-5) Math representatives for vertical teaming
*Define Role and Responsibilities: Initial and Weekly
Use Delphi method to introduce Goal inquiries.
(See pg. 95 Examining What We Do To Improve Our Schools)
*Facilitate the dissemination of information and implementation of best teaching practices and use of academic math language during MATH SHARE SESSIONS
*Self-Reflection: Identify road blocks to desired growth and plan for problem resolution; seek support or guidance
* Did I describe the context in enough detail so that I can understand the context in which my wonderings emerged and the decisions I made throughout my research (Dana, p.179)?
* Did I explain all procedures associated with my inquiry, including a timeline for my work and how I analyzed data?
* Did I adjust my data collection strategies along the way if I found such adjustments we important in my learning (or in the learning of others)?
* Did I spend too much or too little time collecting data)?
RESOURCES/RESEARCH TOOLS NEEDED:
1.
*District Curriculum
*Scope and Sequence (vertical alignment)
*Grade level specific data
*Access to Math Specialist
*Academic Math Language (K-5)
*Shared strategy or vocabulary activity, Lesson Activity
*Laptop computers-note-taking/Keep minutes for each meeting for analysis.
*Flash drives per Math Liaison for any shared ppts, resources
RESPONSIBILITY TO ADDRESS ACTIVITIES:
1.
Lead: Terri Ferrell
Collaborators:
One teacher from each grade level (Math Liaisons)
Support Staff: Math Specialist
TIMELINE
1.
Once a week
(30 minutes)
Begin the week of January 3, 2011
2. Pre-survey begin the week of January 3, 2011
3. Vertical Team Meeting January 10, 2011
8. Minutes of meeting (weekly)
1. Begin Assessment Data review from week 15—week of Dec. 6, 2010 followed by week 18 week of Jan. 24, 2011 and every three weeks until June 31, 2011
4, 5, 7
Share Sessions (Weekly)
6. Snapshot observation per admin. approval
9. Post-survey End of Year May 2011
BENCHMARKS/ASSESSMENT:
Outcome 1.
1. Assessment Data
2. Pre-survey questions to determine current culture, climate, instructional practices, perceptions, comfort, expertise, depth of need.
3. Discuss specific areas of concern per grade level
4. On-going interviews with Math Liaisons to gain insights into need, purpose, and direction.
5. On-going shared Lesson Planning—looking for academic vocabulary
6. On-going snapshot observations to listen for verbal use of academic language and depth of instruction
7. On-going field observations of student journals before and after
8. Keep minutes for each meeting for analysis.
9. Post- survey to identify growth or change in culture and climate to monitor culture and climate from vertical team math liaisons and all other K-5 math teachers.
Revisions to SIP/PIP based on monitoring and assessments
Areas for possible revision will include:
1. extending the time or frequency of the meetings
2. altering discussion based on priority issues
3. using interview feedback to validate the need for re-direction of focus based on need
4. using observations to evaluate degree of teacher implementation and possible methods for continued motivation
5. review student journals to evaluate the application of new vocabulary and/or strategies
OUTCOMES: (2 of 3)
2. Increased "ownership" of responsibility and degree of shared accountability for
conceptual, foundational TEKS instruction for all K-5 Math teachers
ACTIVITIES:
2.
Pre-Survey
Post-Survey
Self-Reflection:
Am I confident that my findings, as well as my selection of a strategy to illustrate my findings, emerged from my data and my learning and that I did not force my data to fit the opinions and values I had in place before beginning the inquiry?
RESOURCES/RESEARCH TOOLS NEEDED:
2.
Survey Monkey
Support:
Ms. Barrett
RESPONSIBILITY TO ADDRESS ACTIVITIES:
2.
Lead: Terri Ferrell
Collaborators:
All K-5 Math Teachers
TIMELINE:
2.
Before and After
(prior to first meeting week of Jan. 3, 2011 and after last meeting May 2011)
BENCHMARKS/ASSESSMENTS:
Outcome 2.
2. Pre-survey (Same As Above) using questions to determine current culture, climate, instructional practices, perceptions, comfort, expertise, depth of need.
4. On-going interviews (Same As Above) with Math Liaisons to gain insights into need, purpose, and direction.
5. On-going shared Lesson Planning (Same As Above)—looking for academic vocabulary
6. On-going snapshot (Same As Above) observations to listen for verbal use of academic language and depth of instruction
7. On-going field observations (Same as above) of student journals before and after
8. Post-survey (Same as Above) using questions to
evaluate the impact of progress and the degree of implementation
Revisions to SIP/PIP based on monitoring and assessments
3. using interview feedback to validate the need for re-direction of focus based on need
4. using observations to evaluate degree of teacher implementation and possible methods for
continued motivation
5. review student journals to evaluate the application of new vocabulary and/or strategies
OUTCOMES: (3 of 3)
3. Improved Student Academic Performance
ACTIVITIES:
3.
Assessments
Student Journals
Teacher and Student Interview
Self-Reflection:
Am I confident that my findings, as well as my selection of a strategy to illustrate my findings, emerged from my data and my learning and that I did not force my data to fit the opinions and values I had in place before beginning the inquiry?
RESOURCES/RESEARCH TOOLS NEEDED:
3.
Math Specialist
Ms. Rachal, AP
Ms. Barrett, AP
RESPONSIBILITY TO ADDRESS ACTIVITIES:
3.
Lead: Terri Ferrell
Collaborators:
Math Liaisons
TIMELINE:
3.
Monitor Data—every three weeks
(Team Analysis)
BENCHMARKS/ASSESSMENTS:
Outcome 3.
1. Assessment Data: Benchmarks, Common Assessments
7. On-going field observations (Same as above) of student journals before and after
9. Math failure rates on report cards.
Revisions to SIP/PIP based on monitoring and assessments
1. Assessment Data: Benchmarks, Common Assessments to drive decision-making
7. On-going field observations (Same as above) of student journals before and after
Action Research Plan Approved December 10, 2010 by site supervisor: Ms. Rachal, Assistant Principal
Terri,
I can tell that you've put a lot of thought and consideration into your plan. It provides a lot of detail and you set some lofty goals. While we have had periodic vertical team meetings at Nitsch, we have not had weekly meetings committed to Math Vertical Team collaboration. I anticipate that with your specific plans and commitment we will see positive results. Your plan is approved.
Great job!
No comments:
Post a Comment